(iii) an assessment of the
degree of online copyright infringement and the extent to which
identified search engines and other internet services facilitate this,
and’.

Amendment
36, in
clause 21, page 19, line 10, at
end insert—

‘(2) The
Secretary of State must make a statement to both Houses of Parliament
detailing the findings of the report referred to in subsection (1) and
what actions he intends to take as result of any recommendations of the
report.’.

New
clause 3—Online copyright infringements: technology
companies—

‘(1)
The Secretary of State will, within three months of this Act coming
into force, report to both Houses of Parliament on proposals that will
have the purpose of ensuring technology companies hinder access via the
internet to copyright infringing
material.’.

Mr
Wright: It is excellent to see you in the
Chair, Mr Turner; I look forward to your presiding over our
proceedings. I am sure Mr Havard mentioned that we made swift progress
this morning, as well as how grumpy the Minister was. I think we will
slow down for our consideration of clause 21, not because we have had a
good lunch or because of your chairmanship skills, but because the
clause is so important. It is about what will be included in and what
could be added to the annual report from the Intellectual Property
Office.

The
clause requires the Secretary of State to present to Parliament each
year a report that sets out certain requirements, such as the
activities of the IPO to promote innovation and economic growth in the
UK, as well as how

“legislation
relating to intellectual property has been effective in facilitating
innovation and economic growth in the United
Kingdom.”

The
clause makes it clear, however, that

“references to
legislation…do not include a reference to legislation relating
to plant breeders’ rights or rights under section 7 of the Plant
Varieties Act
1997.”

It
is important to mention
that.

The
explanatory notes to the Bill state that

“The
clause does not describe the content of the report, as the policy
activities of the IPO change from year to year.”

Column number: 44

I have sympathy with
that; it is important to be flexible.
However, the “broad outline” of the report will
include things such as information on legislative changes and
pre-legislative work; information on cross-border co-operation and
international negotiations; policy development work undertaken to
address challenges with the intellectual property system; main outputs
of the IPO’s economic research programme and how they related to
innovation and growth; and an assessment of the IPO’s activities
that support business and raise awareness of the importance of
protecting IP. Within that framework and the provisions of the clause,
we believe that other items could be considered, and
amendments 34, 35 and 36 and new clause 3 would help to
achieve that.

Amendment 34
would include consideration of job creation in the IPO report. It was
mentioned on Second Reading how important the creative industries are,
providing 1.5 million jobs, 10% of the economy, and more than
£36 billion of gross value added. However, as I think I
mentioned on Second Reading, it would be entirely wrong to
state that IP is the preserve only of specific creative industries such
as music and broadcasting. Our value as an economy—our arguably
unique value, or second perhaps only to the US—is in the
difficult-to-define juxtaposition between creativity and innovation and
the impact on production and manufacturing. The fact that we have a
strong creative industries sector combined with a strong science and
research base and world-beating manufacturing sectors, including
automotive, construction, aerospace and pharmaceutical, means that our
economic model and future prosperity is very much dependent upon
IP.

The big
question for Governments in the 21st century, especially in western
economies dealing with the aftermath of 2008, is: what sort of economic
model do we want to pursue? Do we want to compete on the basis of low
skills, low wages and poor employment protection—is that how we
will consider ourselves to be economically competitive in the modern
world? Or do we want a highly skilled, highly paid, productive and
innovative work force, producing high-value products that the rest of
the world will pay a premium to buy? In that context,
how IP drives forward job creation is an essential consideration, and
on that basis it seems reasonable that job creation should be
explicitly included in the Bill in clause 21. Innovation and economic
growth, which are in the Bill, might not necessarily translate into job
creation, so the IPO should consider and report on that too. That is
the purpose behind amendment 34: to include job creation as part of the
contribution made by the IPO’s activities.

Amendment 35
was prompted by a recommendation from the excellent report on the
creative industries from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee,
“Supporting the creative economy”. I am pleased and
somewhat apprehensive that we have in this Committee several members of
the Select Committee who are knowledgeable and expert, and I hope they
will expand, particularly in consideration of the amendments, on what
the Committee was told and what it
found.

There
is a particularly telling point in paragraph 33 of the Select Committee
report, which states
that

“The
IPO should do more to help support the creative
industries”.

The
BPI is quoted as
saying:

“The
measures on the enforcement of copyright need to be backed up by an
Intellectual Property Office that is properly resourced and focused on
defending the rights of UK creators.

Column number: 45

The IPO has spent a lot of energy looking at how the rights of UK
companies can be reduced. The BPI would also ask the Committee to look
at the energy the IPO puts into its role in enforcing
copyright”.

With
digitisation, mass infringement or piracy has become widespread. The
music industry has probably been the most affected by this development
over the past 20 years or so with the rise of Napster and other online
facilities. At the moment, that industry is playing catch-up. We have
seen a lot of disruption and a lot of traditional record labels fall by
the wayside as a result of what is happening with the internet and
downloading, but the really interesting development is that legitimate
and innovative business models are being established. There is a
tension that I think it will be interesting for this Committee to
explore. If consumers are able to listen to music for free, how can
artists make enough money to create new product? How can consumers be
given a good deal—I note that the Consumer Rights Bill is having
its Second Reading this afternoon—while ensuring that the
creators are rewarded for their work? What is the appropriate balance
between creative industries and technology companies that distribute
that
content?

Physical
sales of CDs are in decline, although I understand that vinyl is making
a comeback, but what is interesting is that digital downloads are also
on the wane. Digital subscription services such as Spotify and Deezer
use a business model that is being developed to give consumers access
to a vast catalogue of music for about £10 a month. That shows
that legitimate and innovative business models are being produced and
that, crucially, consumers want to buy legitimate product that does not
infringe copyright if it is easy, convenient and cheap for them to do
so.

I
have mentioned music, because I am a music lover, but I also like video
games, and that is another great British industry that is growing and
should be nurtured. Online piracy in video games is rife. Sports
Interactive makes the “Football Manager” series, of which
the most recent version was downloaded illegally 10 times for every
legitimate copy sold: 8.5 million individuals illegally downloaded
“Football Manager 2013”. How much income is thereby lost
to the industry, which in turn will restrict product
development?

Jim
Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab): I do not know if my
hon. Friend is going to come to this, but the other aspect of illegal
downloading is that it increases the costs for those who buy the
product legitimately. Clearly, the rights owner needs to recover the
loss from so much of it being traded
illegally.

Mr
Wright: My hon. Friend makes an important point. People
often say that this is a victimless crime, in the same way as stealing
from a supermarket might be a victimless crime, but we all pay for it
as a society. Supermarkets mitigate the risk of shoplifting by
increasing prices. This is no different as an economic model. That
point is at the heart of this amendment. To what extent is widespread
infringement and online theft facilitated by search engines? Should the
IPO know and what is the cost to the industry and to our competitive
advantage as a
result?

I
was talking about the video games industry. Like music, the industry is
adopting new business models like free-to-play and in-game purchases.
Equally, we

Column number: 46

need to know what is being done to restrict access to sites that help
someone find illegal or pirated copies, which brings me to the role of
technology companies, particularly search engines, that allow consumers
to find content. To what extent are those companies facilitating
illegal access to copyrighted material by putting illegal sites at the
top of their search lists? The hon. Member for Perth and North
Perthshire mentioned an astonishing statistic on Second Reading, to the
effect—I hope I have this right; he will correct me if I am
wrong—that for the top 20 singles and albums for November 2013,
77% of first page search results for singles and 64% for albums
directed the consumer to an illegal site. I have to say to the Minister
that that surely cannot be allowed to continue.

It seems
perfectly reasonable to suggest that, as part of the IPO’s
ongoing work and annual reporting procedures, as set out in clause
21

“an
assessment of the degree of online copyright infringement and the
extent to which identified search engines and other internet services
facilitate
this”

should
be included. As the basis for amendment 35, I have included the actual
wording of the recommendation from the Select Committee. I thought the
report was excellent and I hope the Minister is amenable to such a
request.

On
a similar theme, new clause 3 proposes that within three months of the
Act coming into force, the Secretary of State will set out to both
Houses firm proposals on how the Government plan to take action to
ensure that technology companies hinder access to infringing material.
Again, my amendment was prompted by the sterling work carried out by
the Select Committee. I was struck by the eloquence and frankly direct
nature of the language proposed by the Select Committee in its report.
It said
this:

“We
strongly condemn the failure of Google, notable among technology
companies, to provide an adequate response to creative industry
requests to prevent its search engine directing consumers to
copyright-infringing websites … on the flimsy grounds that some
operate under the cover of hosting some legal content. The continuing
promotion by search engines of illegal content on the internet is
unacceptable. So far,
their”—

by
which they mean Google and other search
engines—

“attempts
to remedy this have been derisorily
ineffective”.

The
report concluded the section by
stating:

“We
do not believe it to be beyond the wit of the engineers employed by
Google and others to demote and, ideally, remove copyright infringing
material from search engine
results”.

Amendment
35 would ensure that the IPO actively looks at this matter on an
ongoing basis as part of its annual reporting procedure, and new clause
3 would prompt the Government to bring to Parliament within three
months firm plans to deal with this
issue.

Finally
in this group, amendment 36 would ensure that the Secretary of State
would act on any findings and recommendations made in the IPO report.
Under the amendment, the Secretary of State must make a statement to
Parliament setting out how he intends to take forward—or
otherwise—the recommendations made. This would allow Parliament
the opportunity to scrutinise the plans, it would provide greater
parliamentary accountability, and it would help push the issue of
intellectual property further up the agenda, where it rightly
belongs.

Column number: 47

It
may well be that the commitment is already implicit in clause 21, given
the specific requirements of the clause, but I
would not mind if the Minister made that clear, ensuring that the
Secretary of State will act upon any recommendations and that this will
be included in the report. I am interested in what the Minister and
others will say on this matter. This is a big issue which is affecting
the competitive position of innovative UK firms and it must be
addressed swiftly. I hope the Minister is amenable to our
suggestions.

Mr
Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab): It is a great
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am
grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool for mentioning the
work of the Select Committee. It is, of course, made up of Members from
both sides of the House. My hon. Friend was quite right to say that
ours was a strong report on the impact that the creative industries
have on our economy. I think I mentioned in the report and on Second
Reading the importance of the creative industries to constituencies
such as mine, where we have lost the manufacturing base but are finding
new jobs through the creative
industries.

I
was heartened on Second Reading by the Minister’s response to
the idea of reporting. Not only could we hear the good news about the
positive things that have happened, but perhaps we could hear some of
the bad news, and some of the problems that bodies might face. I
mentioned the important role that trading standards play, and while it
is not specifically included in the clause or amendments, perhaps
before Report stage we can look at which additional bodies could give
support to the IPO
report.

The
need for training came out strongly on Second Reading, and the hon.
Member for Hove has alluded to it. Perhaps there ought to be a report
back about the prospects and the promotion of training as part of the
development of IP, for the reason that my hon. Friend set out: lots of
businesses and companies still do not know the need or what is taking
place. I know that roadshows will help in that, but maybe we can put
training in there as
well.

2.15
pm

Let
me turn to search engines, on which the Select Committee took a great
amount of evidence. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), once said that Google
had more chance of seeing the Prime Minister than he did. I think he
now regrets saying that, because we remind him of it every time he
appears before us. He was making the point also made by the hon. Member
for Perth and North Perthshire, that Google has some work to do here.
It is not good enough to keep giving us excuses about why they do not
pursue illegal sites. This is an emerging problem, which perhaps we
must tackle
elsewhere.

At
a surgery on Friday, a constituent came forward who had been charged an
extra £50 to buy a driving licence. The first driving licence
site which she saw on the internet was not an illegal
site—although it was not the Government site—but
it offered to get driving licences for a fee of £50. Whether on
the Consumer Rights Bill or elsewhere, we need to have a discussion

Column number: 48

with Google about these issues. Clearly, Google
makes money from that, but the public interest should be put
first.

I welcome the
clause and the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for
Hartlepool tabled. I also welcome the Minister’s response on
Second Reading. Hopefully he will be equally positive today on
the matters that we raise, because we do so to
strengthen and support the Bill, and to help ensure that
people understand intellectual property and the issues
around
it.

Pete
Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I hope
you enjoy our little kick-about with intellectual property.

I very much
support what has been included in clause 21. We were all
relatively surprised when we saw the clause in the Bill, particularly
given the IPO’s obligation and responsibility to report in
statute. That is a very welcome development. Like the hon. Member for
Hartlepool, we should look at this as a real opportunity to examine the
IPO and see how it works, to ensure that, when it reports to us in
Parliament, we get the fullest and most transparent report
possible.

We
need the opportunity to examine to the nth detail every role the IPO
plays in increasing its work and ensuring that we get innovation
growth, which is at the heart of everything we are trying to achieve
with the Bill. On Second Reading, everybody commented on the
value of IP-supported industry and the fantastic contribution it makes
to the general economy. I hope that we will look at the amendments that
the hon. Member for Hartlepool introduced, to be sure that we are doing
all we can to get the fullest possible
Bill.

The
Hargreaves process has been mentioned on several occasions. I believe
it has been generally positive and resulted in a number of great
initiatives, and we now have this Bill in front of us. However, it was
also a painful process for a number of people in the creative
industries. Those who served the creative industries found themselves
greatly undervalued during parts of this process. They were told that a
lot of the evidence they brought to Government was nothing more than
lobbynomics, and they were patronisingly dismissed when they presented
evidence from their industries that suggested that things needed to be
done and addressed. There was a sense that they were told to go away,
as if they did not really understand the working environment they were
in, even though the creative industries had delivered such fantastic
success in the past few
years.

When
we reach the annual report, it is important that we can all feel
confident in it. All the stakeholders must have the opportunity to
contribute to it and examine it in full detail, and if
necessary, see if they could add to it to make it better and ensure the
proper way
forward.

A
lot of the argument was over the economic assumptions. Some truly
heroic assumptions were made by the Intellectual Property Office about
some of the Hargreaves recommendations. For example, it was said that
GDP would increase by 0.6%, and that the format shifting exception
alone would bring something like £26 billion to the
economy. That figure seemed to have been reached on the ground that
there is some sort of private copying exception holding back the
industry, and had this measure been in place originally, the UK
probably could have invented the iPod, or something

Column number: 49

like that. There is also the £600,000 figure
put down for lifting the parody exception. When we see the report from
the Intellectual Property Office, we must have robust figures that bear
some relation to reality if we move forward with
this.

On
copyright exceptions, I support the comments of the hon. Member for
Hartlepool on music, which was the first creative industry to be part
of the digital revolution because music is easily cloned. The music
industry is at the interface between digital technology and the
traditional models. Where music has gone, the rest of the creative
industries have followed. Features that were pioneered for music are
now common in all other creative industries. It is therefore right that
we look at those things.

Search
engines are an issue; the British Phonographic Industry has sent 5
million take-down notices to Google. When you search for the name of
your favourite band, Mr Turner, you will be directed to illegal sites.
Something must be done about that. We must be able to challenge the
large technology companies that are the gatekeepers of our content
industries. Search engines have an important function, but when they
direct people to illegal sites it is right that we take an interest and
do something to address that. We must ensure that when people search
for music they are directed to legal sites, not illegal sites, as they
currently are.

I support
clause 21. It is a good thing, and we have the opportunity to make it
even better. If the hon. Gentleman is in the mood to press any of the
amendments to a vote, he will have my
support.

The
Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts):
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Turner. I enjoyed the challenge set by
the hon. Member for Hartlepool, and the interventions of the hon.
Members for Bradford South and for Perth and North
Perthshire.

We all share
the same objective. We want to ensure that the activities of the IPO
are reported to Parliament and are more fully accounted for than ever
before. Therefore, the clause is significant. I hoped that it would
have been welcomed more generously, because it will place a
statutory duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to
Parliament about how the activities of the Intellectual Property
Office

“have
contributed to the promotion of innovation and of economic growth in
the United
Kingdom”.

It
is the first time that the Government have provided for such an
obligation. We are absolutely up for it, because this is an important
subject and there is a lot of legitimate public interest in it. It is a
way that we can be held to account. The clause responds to the central
challenge of the Hargreaves review, which was for the IPO to focus on
its core objective of supporting innovation, and therefore growth, in
the UK. The publication of an annual report will significantly increase
transparency. I hope that is shared ground on both sides of the
Committee. The clause is a significant step forward.

The question,
which is the linking thread in all the amendments, is to what extent we
should specify in primary legislation what the IPO report should cover.
We are sceptical about the merits of being as prescriptive as the hon.
Member for Hartlepool. The issues that were raised in all three
speeches are genuine—they are hot topics. They are absolutely
what we would expect the IPO to cover in its annual report this year.
However,

Column number: 50

this is an area in which there is rapid
technological and commercial change. We do not know what the issues of
the greatest controversy and public interest will be in five
years’ time, and it would be absurd if the Government of the day
had to come back to Parliament to amend primary legislation so that the
IPO’s annual report remained up to date and topical. Therefore,
our view is that the amendments are too prescriptive.

Amendment
34 refers to employment. Of course we want the IPO to contribute to
employment, although it is hard for a lot of what it does to have a
direct impact on employment. Let me be clear—I hope this helps
the hon. Gentleman with his understandable concern—that where
there is evidence that particular activities carried out by the
Intellectual Property Office have had or are expected to have an impact
on employment, its report can and should include that. I am happy to
make it clear to the Committee that where there is an employment angle,
that is absolutely what we expect the IPO to cover. We do not think
that it is necessary to make this an obligation in primary
legislation.

There
is then the issue in amendment 35 of copyright infringement. The hon.
Member for Bradford South and the hon. Member for Perth and North
Perthshire also referred to this. We completely understand its
significance. That is why we have done a lot of work to establish the
basic data on trends in online infringement of copyright. We published
in September last year the final wave of the large scale consumer
tracking study, which Ofcom commissioned. We are working with industry,
including internet intermediaries, such as internet service providers,
search engines, internet advertising bodies and payment facilitators,
to address this problem. It is a cross-Government approach in which the
Culture Minister plays a crucial role.

Should this
be specified in primary legislation as an area that has to be covered
every year? We think that would be too inflexible. Again, it might help
Opposition Members if I give them this assurance: given the
IPO’s work in this area over the past year, the whole subject of
online infringement of copyright will be included in the 2014 report.
That is a crucial issue of public concern and it will continue to
appear in the report so long as it remains
such.

Mike
Weatherley (Hove) (Con): I appreciate all the points that
have been made today. Will the Minister also confirm that the report
will specifically allude to the IPO’s educational activities? On
Second Reading, I suggested a possible amendment, which I am happy not
to advance here in Committee, provided that there is an absolute
assurance from the Minister that this will be thoroughly covered in the
annual report and able to be debated on the Floor of the House
each
time.

Mr
Willetts: Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s
work generally, but especially on this Bill. Let me give him my clear
assurance: yes, education will be covered in the report because it is
very important. Its significance has already been recognised in our
discussions today. I can give him that assurance. He is right to press
for it. He has been a realist about what can and cannot be prescribed
in primary legislation. This is not about the significance of copyright
infringement or education or employment, which are all absolutely valid
issues. The issue before the Committee today is simply whether
we wish to prescribe in permanent, primary legislation

Column number: 51

what the report should cover. Given the speed of change in the industry,
we are wary of being too prescriptive in primary
legislation.

Amendment
36 would require the Secretary of State to inform Parliament what
actions he will take as a result of recommendations in the report. Of
course, the clause already commits the Secretary of State to lay the
report before Parliament. It is a retrospective assessment of the work
of the IPO. We think that the further actions are best set out and laid
before Parliament in the IPO’s corporate plan. That is a
separate document. It is not the same as the annual report. The IPO is
required to publish it annually. It is agreed with Ministers. It
contains the future work programme for the office and it is therefore
something that is publicly open to scrutiny and on which Ministers and
the IPO can be held to
account.

Members
on both sides of the Committee have expressed their understandable
concerns about real issues affecting intellectual property. Let me
reiterate that the Government completely understand those issues. The
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is committed to working
with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Ofcom on tackling
online infringement of copyright. We are funding the new City of London
police IP crime unit to tackle all IP crime facilitated through the
internet. We have extended the rights to licence for sound recordings
used by charities. We will be hosting a major international summit on
IP enforcement in London in June. We have carried out extensive
research on the issue of online copyright infringement. All those
issues are absolutely live, but the question is whether we set out in
primary legislation that they have to be covered in the annual report.
We believe that would be excessively prescriptive for what we all agree
is a rapidly changing scene, so I hope that, in light of my assurances,
the hon. Member for Hartlepool will withdraw his
amendment.

2.30
pm

Mr
Wright: I thank all hon. Members who contributed to this
important debate. The Minister is absolutely right, because we were
concerned while drafting the amendments not to be too prescriptive. We
have no idea what technology is going to be like in a year or five
years, let alone 10 or 20 years, so it is right that we are
technology-blind because we will not be able to make things
future-proof. I think we achieved that, and it is to the credit of the
Select Committee that, when looking at the value and importance of the
creative industries, it did so too.

I accept the
Minister’s point about amendment 34 and job creation although,
in an ideal world, I would still like such an amendment to be made. An
interesting article on disruptive technologies in The Economist
a week or so ago said that digitisation and technology might mean that
47% of existing jobs will be obsolete in the next few years. The impact
on jobs of technology, copyright infringement and wider IP is
important.

My hon.
Friend the Member for Bradford South mentioned how, in the light of
deindustrialisation and the move from manufacturing into services,
creative industries are vitally important, so job creation in that

Column number: 52

field is key. He also mentioned—this was raised on Second Reading
but it is worth repeating—sites that are deliberately designed
to look official, but that are, frankly, conning people. He mentioned
sites offering driving licences. Before our sitting, I was listening
from the Opposition Front Bench to the Consumer Rights Bill’s
Second Reading debate. A Government Member made an intervention about
self-assessment—this is the week when a lot of people will be
thinking about their tax returns and self-assessment, although I am
safe in the knowledge that I have posted my return, so I feel quite
smug about that—and said that somebody had been make to think
that they were looking at the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
website and had paid £500 in the belief that they were
completing their self-assessment and paying all their tax, although
clearly was not the case. What is the Minister doing to make sure that
sites that infringe copyright are identified and that the consumer is
not
harmed?

My
hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, the Opposition
Whip, has been asking a lot of parliamentary questions about such
practice. He asked the Minister for the Cabinet Officer what
estimate

“he
has made of the number of websites charging for access to Government
online services…if he will take steps to ensure that the
Competition and Markets Authority is able to take enforcement action on
websites found to be charging for access to online Government services
irrespective of whether a disclaimer statement is
deployed”

and
what other steps were being taken. The Minister of State, Cabinet
Office, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd),
gave my hon. Friend a somewhat complacent response, saying:

“Officials
in the Government Digital Service…are leading a cross-government
exercise to gather information about the operation of third-party
websites offering services associated with official Government
services”—

I
do not think that that is good enough. Nor do I think it is good enough
that the Cabinet Office Minister
said:

“Where
Government has become aware of websites that make misleading claims in
their advertising it has brought these complaints to the attention of
the Advertising Standards Authority. Government has and continues to
take direct action to prevent the misuse of Government logos or any
suggestion of affiliation with Government by these
websites.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2014; Vol.
574, c.
315-316W.]

That
seems to be a bit
complacent.

On
amendment 35, the question is whether we are being overtly prescriptive
by asking for detail to be put in the Bill. I do not think we are.
Online copyright infringement, and the extent to which identified
search engines are helping to facilitate it, has been an issue
in respect of digitisation and online piracy for the past 20
years—since Napster, and arguably before. Given rapid
technological changes and disruptive technologies, I suspect it will be
an issue for the next 20 years, regardless of what the technology will
look like. It does not seem unreasonable to ensure that it is covered
by the Bill so that the conflict between creative industries and
technology companies is considered to be a key thing on which the IPO
reports. The Select Committee had a particularly strong view on that
point, so I would like to test the opinion of this Committee on
amendment
35.

The
hon. Member for Hove made an good point about education and
also—almost in passing—asked the very important question
of whether the annual report would be debated on the Floor of the
House. IP

Column number: 53

is often considered not to be worthy of discussion in the Chamber. The
Minister did not respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point, so will
he tell us whether the House will be able to debate
the IPO report and the Secretary of State’s response to it on an
annual basis? Will Government business managers ensure that we can have
that
debate?

Pete
Wishart: One of my concerns is that the IP Minister has
never been a Member of the House of Commons. We have never had an
opportunity to put our questions to him at Question Time or during the
passage of such Bills. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time
that the IP Minister was a Member of the elected House so that we may
question him
regularly?

Mr
Wright: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. IP is far
too often seen as a secondary concern that is not important, even
though it can be the source of a prime comparative advantage for the
modern UK economy. People will invest here because we have a robust IP
regime that is flexible to rapid and often disruptive technological
changes. We need to ensure that that
continues.

Mr
David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)rose—

Mr
Wright: I give way to a fantastic former BIS Minister. He
knows about the Digital Economy Act 2010, so he might be able to shed
some light on the
subject.

Mr
Lammy: I hesitated to rise, but this was an appropriate
moment to do so. It is important that we have an IP Minister in this
House. The significance of the creative economy to British GDP is well
understood, and it needs to grow. The importance of intellectual
property is self-evident, so I support what my hon. Friend
says.

Mr
Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that
intervention. He is right that the creative industries are something of
which the country can be hugely proud. Other nations look with envy at
the strength of our creative industries and the impact that our
creativity and innovation has on things such as manufacturing. We can
design and invent things that are the envy of the world—a
Rolls-Royce engine is proof of that.

Column number: 54

It is
important that we protect and nurture our comparative advantage, and
address the tension between content and technology that may be in
conflict with that. I accept some of what the Minister has said, but
will he commit to having an annual debate about IP on the Floor of the
House during which the IPO report may be
discussed?

I
wish to test the opinion of the Committee on amendment 35—it is
not overtly prescriptive, but sensible. However, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw amendment
34.